So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Who is Father Hill? Haralambos is the only "H" in my name. I as a priest cannot kill another, but if someone comes after anyone in my presence, family included, they may lose a limb or two. I as a priest also have prevented every abortion of every parishioner or family member or person I know who has come to me with this intention without killing them. Most mothers do not have a psychopathic intent to kill like a serial killer or conscienceless thief.

You say a zygote is a full blown person with a 'soul'. A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that..

This ranks as probably one of the most stupid statements on this thread. So, per your belief, Nazis are not necessarily genocidal killers because they did not believe Jews to be fully human. The KKK should continue decorating trees with black people because they do not belive black people to be fully human. The idea of what constitues a human has been behing nearly every mass killing. Abortion is no different.

Punch, you must have been tired when you read this post. You forgot to repost the quote with bold: "A person isnt necessarily a Nazi genocidal killer, or a homicidal manic, or a mass murderer if they don't accept that.."To be honest with you, I cannot believe that ROCOR tolerates this. He would be out on his sorry hide if he were in our jurisdiction. As for Orthoabnorm, I wish I could say that I don't know why the OCA has not hit the button on the ejection seat, but I do.

So your jurisdiction believes in judgmental finger pointing even to the extent that it may cause an increase in the rate of abortion.

Wow... Hard to believe.

Maybe you should start with (because you have ignored everything else we have talked about within proper context) just how our beliefs (i.e., teachings of the Church) cause more abortions. You can't substantiate the claim, but I thought I would ask...since you want to talk about your own fabrications rather than discuss the actual topic.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Good points, Jonathan.

It seems to me, too, that Marc has overlooked the fact, already pointed out somewhere above in all the verbiage, that not all murderers are treated identically, that there are in most if not all states different "degrees" of homicide, and that not all people who are convicted of a particular type or degree of homicide get exactly the same punishment. Criminalizing abortion as murder can also include establishing suitable punishments for it for *both* the mother and the abortionist, perhaps even with a greater punishment for the abortionist. So, no, the definition of abortion as murder does NOT break down, as Marc says, "...when you take it to it's logical conclusion which would be the jailing or execution of Women who have abortions.", especially if those are the punishments that society, through legislation (if it EVER comes to that), has decreed as being appropriate for the crime. The "logical conclusion" in any society governed by law, whether said law is based on Christian principles or not, is that violating the law has consequences and sometimes those consequences are dire, as dire as the crime committed. What's the saying, "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"? Well, IF, and it's a huge if, we ever convince legislators to criminalize abortion that saying would apply as much to that as to any other crime.

In the meantime, however, until such a day arrives, we will have to use other means at our disposal (which may or may not include religious arguments, depending on who we're talking to) to educate young people about sexual moderation and abstinence and to try to dissuade women from having abortions, and make resources available such as this, for example http://tendercare.org/ on a much greater scale, so that women don't think that abortion is the only viable option for them in an "unwanted" pregnancy.

If you read back you will find several people who say "Murder is Murder is Murder".. When I then ask if they will jail or even exicute Women who have abortions, they have repeatedly said yes.

I am glad you will consider lighter sentences. Keep in mind you will never have such power and neither will they, so keeping the actual power dynamic in mind, I suggest persuasion rather than threats or porjecting some sort of fantisy policial situation that is not really ever going to happen.

Well, murder IS murder. What else would you call it?? It ain't shoplifting and shouldn't be punished as such. I would not necessarily be against imposition of the death penalty, should society decree that, on the person who performs the abortion.

Now, whether or not our society has the collective guts to get to the point of calling abortion murder and imposing appropriate punishment for it, well...I don't expect it, certainly not in what's left of my lifetime, but I won't stop praying for it, either.

It's "murder" based on the metaphysics of your religion. Therefore, tread more lightly. An ordinarily prudent person can look at the same set of facts, without the overlay of your religious beliefs and draw a far different conclusion

No, it's murder based on God, who is the final authority on the matter regardless of a persons personal belief.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

It occurs to me that your whole premise is based on the misguided notion that any and every Christian who goes out into the public square, or wherever, to try to convince others not to kill unborn babies does so, necessarily, in a boorish, judgmental, accusatory, threatening manner. I may not be too bright according to you, or as skilled a debater as you, but I do have eyes and at least half a brain and only very, very rarely have I seen such behavior, and it has always turned me off.

1. I hope you are not excluding yourself in that judgment. If you also want to include me, then go right ahead.

2. This forum is NOT the public square, as I've pointed out several times already, and we are not discussing HERE the issues in necessarily the same manner as we would out in the public square. What will it take for you to get that??

Because it's a dodge.. You dont want to discuss the implications of calling people murders and threatening them with harm because it damages your agenda.

Agenda? When did following the teachings of the Church become an agenda?

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Perhaps you should just stop making assumptions about us altogether.

That is impossible:

You know what I mean. And.........impossible or not, why not give it the old college try, eh? Or at least tone them down.

I've put Gadamer's book on my wish list--thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, not only is that list now very long, in addition there are all the books piled up around the house waiting to be read that have more priority at the moment. I also have a sneaky suspicion that a) Gadamer is over my head, and b) even if he wrote it (whatever the "it" of it is ) does not necessarily make it true. So, while you say it's impossible not to make assumptions and reference Gadamer, that also does not make it true that it is impossible not to make assumptions--at least of the kind we're referring to in this thread. But, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to really know that--maybe one day .

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Perhaps you should just stop making assumptions about us altogether.

That is impossible:

You know what I mean. And.........impossible or not, why not give it the old college try, eh? Or at least tone them down.

I've put Gadamer's book on my wish list--thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, not only is that list now very long, in addition there are all the books piled up around the house waiting to be read that have more priority at the moment. I also have a sneaky suspicion that a) Gadamer is over my head, and b) even if he wrote it (whatever the "it" of it is ) does not necessarily make it true. So, while you say it's impossible not to make assumptions and reference Gadamer, that also does not make it true that it is impossible not to make assumptions--at least of the kind we're referring to in this thread. But, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to really know that--maybe one day .

is true about Gadamer's book, plus the fact of it being over 600 pages long, I'm going to go out on a fairly large, strong and thick limb, and assume, with pretty good reason, that it is waaayyyy over my head. It has now been bumped to the bottom of my wish list. Sorry. But not very.

« Last Edit: April 04, 2013, 10:37:18 AM by J Michael »

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Perhaps you should just stop making assumptions about us altogether.

That is impossible:

You know what I mean. And.........impossible or not, why not give it the old college try, eh? Or at least tone them down.

I've put Gadamer's book on my wish list--thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, not only is that list now very long, in addition there are all the books piled up around the house waiting to be read that have more priority at the moment. I also have a sneaky suspicion that a) Gadamer is over my head, and b) even if he wrote it (whatever the "it" of it is ) does not necessarily make it true. So, while you say it's impossible not to make assumptions and reference Gadamer, that also does not make it true that it is impossible not to make assumptions--at least of the kind we're referring to in this thread. But, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to really know that--maybe one day .

is true about Gadamer's book, plus the fact of it being over 600 pages long, I'm going to go out on a fairly large, strong and thick limb, and assume, with pretty good reason, that it is waaayyyy over my head. It has now been bumped to the bottom of my wish list. Sorry. But not very.

That jpeg going to be my new stock response.

Yeah, really you can get 93% of the import of the work probably from reading the wiki about it.

You already understand it anyhow. There is nothing you can name that you don't understand, but there is a lot you can't name that you do. Or so Gadamer would tell you.

On the review, really it would nice to have a few dozen pages of Being and Time before Truth and Method, since really it is Gadamer taking a smattering of Heidegger and running wild with the implications.

Sure its great to have the Critique of Judgement under your belt as any university grad ought, and you are RC, so Augustine and Aquinas are second nature to you.

No problem right?

Really, like most "important" books, people like to make a bigger deal about how difficult they are. If some white poorly educated piece of trash can read this stuff make a little sense out of it, anyone can.

Seriously, I can see why folks have trouble with the Critiques and Hegel, but I've rarely come across any other reading that is so daunting that is should deter anyone with reading level which does not make one functionally illiterate in your typical American high school.

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Perhaps you should just stop making assumptions about us altogether.

That is impossible:

You know what I mean. And.........impossible or not, why not give it the old college try, eh? Or at least tone them down.

I've put Gadamer's book on my wish list--thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, not only is that list now very long, in addition there are all the books piled up around the house waiting to be read that have more priority at the moment. I also have a sneaky suspicion that a) Gadamer is over my head, and b) even if he wrote it (whatever the "it" of it is ) does not necessarily make it true. So, while you say it's impossible not to make assumptions and reference Gadamer, that also does not make it true that it is impossible not to make assumptions--at least of the kind we're referring to in this thread. But, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to really know that--maybe one day .

is true about Gadamer's book, plus the fact of it being over 600 pages long, I'm going to go out on a fairly large, strong and thick limb, and assume, with pretty good reason, that it is waaayyyy over my head. It has now been bumped to the bottom of my wish list. Sorry. But not very.

That jpeg going to be my new stock response.

Yeah, really you can get 93% of the import of the work probably from reading the wiki about it.

You already understand it anyhow. There is nothing you can name that you don't understand, but there is a lot you can't name that you do. Or so Gadamer would tell you.

On the review, really it would nice to have a few dozen pages of Being and Time before Truth and Method, since really it is Gadamer taking a smattering of Heidegger and running wild with the implications.

Sure its great to have the Critique of Judgement under your belt as any university grad ought, and you are RC, so Augustine and Aquinas are second nature to you.

No problem right?

Really, like most "important" books, people like to make a bigger deal about how difficult they are. If some white poorly educated piece of trash can read this stuff make a little sense out of it, anyone can.

Seriously, I can see why folks have trouble with the Critiques and Hegel, but I've rarely come across any other reading that is so daunting that is should deter anyone with reading level which does not make one functionally illiterate in your typical American high school.

Slow and steady.

Oh and Kierkegaard. Deceptively "easy" thus usually improperly read.

Maybe one day. You see, unfortunately (maybe) this kind of material doesn't hold all that much interest for me. I have little enough time to read as it is, so very much that I really want to read, that I find it increasingly difficult as I age to force myself to read those things I "should" read. I seriously doubt that reading or not reading Gadamer will affect my relationship with God and my salvation (or lack thereof). So, I appreciate you trying to soften the blow, as it were, but it'll just have to remain, for now, at the bottom of my list. Besides, the cover is just butt-ugly and a real turnoff . (Yes, sometimes I DO judge a book by its cover !)

By the way, I've read little of St. Augustine (his works are MUCH higher on my list of things to read than Gadamer probably ever will be), virtually none of St. Thomas Aquinas (he's up there around the same level as St. Augustine), I'm not a college grad, and I'm not Roman Catholic.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

So, does your reply mean that, in answer to Jonathan Gress' question "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", we should not start calling abortionists murderers, which as you can see he agrees is a debatable tactic? Just trying to be clear.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

So, does your reply mean that, in answer to Jonathan Gress' question "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", we should not start calling abortionists murderers, which as you can see he agrees is a debatable tactic? Just trying to be clear.

I dont understand your question. It's garbled

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

So, does your reply mean that, in answer to Jonathan Gress' question "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", we should not start calling abortionists murderers, which as you can see he agrees is a debatable tactic? Just trying to be clear.

I dont understand your question. It's garbled

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to multitask . I'll try again. Does your reply mean, in response to the question, "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", a) yes, or b) no?

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

So, does your reply mean that, in answer to Jonathan Gress' question "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", we should not start calling abortionists murderers, which as you can see he agrees is a debatable tactic? Just trying to be clear.

I dont understand your question. It's garbled

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to multitask . I'll try again. Does your reply mean, in response to the question, "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", a) yes, or b) no?

I think you should watch your words very very carefully and look to persuade rather than bully or threaten. How can I be clearer? How many times must I say the same thing?

I have been speaking solely about Women who have an abortion.If you dont think women should get the same penalty as for any other murder for hire then you need to explain what the mitigating circumstance is.

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

I think we're confusing two things. One thing is the question of whether abortion constitutes murder. The answer is surely yes. There's really no way to argue from within Orthodoxy that abortion is not murder in every instance, except when done to protect the life the mother, in which case it's "justifiable homicide", in the same way it's justifiable to kill someone who is threatening your life. Even then, we don't say the killing is good, only that it's justifiable.

The other question is whether those who disagree with our views on abortion are culpable if they commit it. I think what Marc is saying is that being a murderer requires the murderer having knowledge of the moral gravity of his actions. Therefore, if you don't believe that killing an unborn child is murder, you are not a murderer, even if from the Orthodox point of view the act itself is murder.

I think that line of reasoning is false, since it introduces moral relativism by the backdoor. The objective moral gravity of a sin is surely not dependent on the beliefs of the sinner. Therefore, I think we can say that, objectively speaking, one who voluntarily kills an unborn child is a murderer.

What we can argue over is how morally culpable the murderer is. Ignorance of the moral gravity of an action CAN be an exculpating factor. I say "can", not "must", because the ignorance itself may be voluntary. We have to consider the possibility that the murderer could have chosen to question his beliefs about abortion, in which case he may have revised them and come to the knowledge that it is indeed a form of murder.

These are obviously difficult questions to which probably only God knows the answer. That is presumably one reason we don't apply laws retroactively. If the law were up to us, I don't think our faith permits any other option than to criminalize abortion as for murder. However, we should not apply the law retroactively to those who committed abortion before, since we should presume they acted in ignorance.

Not precisely my position.

Yes, it is a mitigating circumstance if someone intends to commit a murder or really believes that no human life is being taken. However, a life was still taken so even mitigated, there is still a grave sin.

My primary concern is not really that. There is nothing that compels a Christian to come into the public square and boorishly judge people and threaten them with harm ( jail terms etc.). You can ceratianly justify yourself by pointing out that your Chruch considers Abortion to be a murder. But nothing at all compels anyone from playing that card , except maybe their own pride in being extra Militant.

This tactic is counter productive. It is perfectly reasonable that an ordinarily prudent person can draw the conclusion that an early stage abortion is not the taking of a life. If they are ignorant of something, then they are ignorant of the teachings of Christianity. But objectively speaking, there is no way to know for certain that the "soul" enters the body at conception. That is a religious belief. I suggest treading more lightly if your conclusions are drawn from your faith and not from knowable facts that everyone can plainly see is the case.

OKAY ?

I also suggest waking up the political context. No one is sending Women to jail. Not before during or after anything. There is no possibility of Roe v Wade being overturned. None... Zero... not in any of our lifetimes.

Therefore, the best way to reduce abortion is to put the accusatory finger pointing on the shelf and share your religious understanding of the nature of life and when it may begin and get out of the public/policy square which is the exact wrong place to reach people or have this conversation.......IMHO

Ah I think we've identified the problem. You are distinguishing between "knowledge" and "religious belief", as if we don't already know that both soul and body are created at conception. The belief that life begins at conception is not an irrational superstition, but a rational belief grounded not only in the teaching of the Church but also in our own reason.

Our task is to persuade others that it is reasonable to believe that life begins at conception; from there it should be straightforward to demonstrate that abortion is murder and should be treated as such under the law. Some others have already contributed to this with good arguments. But you shouldn't concede to the secularists that our beliefs are irrational. If you really believe that, you've more or less conceded that your entire belief system is irrational.

mmmmmmmmmmm..Not really

The religious beliefs we are discussing are not based on "reason". In other words they cant be deduced from the facts as we find them. There is an invisible hand involved. The religious belief that soul and body are created together is "reasonable" only to the extent that it is internally logical. But it can't really hold up to rigors scrutiny based on observable, measurable facts. It's requires faith in a list of metaphysical pre suppositions not at all in evidence.

I am not advocating discarding those pre suppostions.. Just be careful when you call someone a Murderer when they don't subscribe to the same list.

If it doesn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny, then we have good reason to think our belief is false. Are you saying you DON'T believe that life begins at conception? I'm sure you are not. As I said, be careful about conceding so much to the secularist, pro-abortion crowd. Some concessions can be used to strengthen one's argument, but others only serve to weaken argument, and I'm sure you are just as keen as the rest of us to offer the strongest argument possible against abortion.

I think there's some confusion about what the "soul" is. Most people who still believe in a soul seem to have settled on defining it as mere consciousness, something which we can only observed in later stages of fetal development at the earliest. But the correct understanding of soul is that it is life itself, the animating principle, and it is quite obvious that even a very young embryo is alive. An aspect of the HUMAN soul, of course, is consciousness, free will, reason and so forth, but these take time to develop. But we can clearly see that the newly conceived embryo is human, and that it is alive, ERGO it must have a soul.

Let me put it a different way then. The assumption that both soul and body are created by the Supreme Being and that life is fully formed at conception is not measurable nor is it observable and in fact observation of a zygote may tend convince someone that it is not yet fully human.

You must add your own metaphysical understanding of the source and nature of life to make it all fly.. Have compassion for people who don't share those assumptions.

Who said I didn't have compassion? Of course we should have compassion for murderers. But that doesn't mean they aren't murderers.

I'm a bit confused about who your audience is at the moment. Are you trying to persuade US that abortion isn't murder? Because that's what it seems like when you argue that we shouldn't call abortionists murderers. Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers? The latter is a debatable tactic, but at least we'd be clear where you stand.

Women....are being called "Murderers" and threatend with violence. No only is that counter productive but it is a bit pathetic since the Pro Life movement has no real possibility of over turning Roe.

It is not mandatory to call anyone a name or threaten them. Doing so damages the possibility of persuading those very same Women to not have an abortion.. So I am not sure who your audience is or what you hope to accomplish.

So, does your reply mean that, in answer to Jonathan Gress' question "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", we should not start calling abortionists murderers, which as you can see he agrees is a debatable tactic? Just trying to be clear.

I dont understand your question. It's garbled

Sorry. That's what happens when I try to multitask . I'll try again. Does your reply mean, in response to the question, "Or are you trying to argue that, for the sake of our campaign against abortion, we shouldn't start by calling abortionists murderers?", a) yes, or b) no?

I think you should watch your words very very carefully and look to persuade rather than bully or threaten. How can I be clearer? How many times must I say the same thing?

I have been speaking solely about Women who have an abortion.If you dont think women should get the same penalty as for any other murder for hire then you need to explain what the mitigating circumstance is.

What if there is a mitigating circumstance for the murder for hire? Why should an assassin with a heart of gold like Leon in The Professional suffer the same fate as someone who pays someone to gruesomely murder a baby?

Agreed. This forum is plenteous in boorish chest thumping posts. I have been counting them and so far am up to a little over 8600.

Then my last 11 posts meet with your approval? Thank God.And remember, when you cant debate the facts, go for the ad hominem remark.. It's the Christian thing to do.......in many jurisdiction apparently.

I don't get to read a lot of secular works, and I (thankfully) did not spend a lot of time in the bastions of political correctness that we call schools. But I have spent considerable time reading from the Fathers of our Church, as well as its hymns and lives of its Saints. I can assure you, Father H's comment is mild to the point of bland compared to what these men would write if confronted with your brand of BS. But given this forum, I am sure that the glorious company of the Apostles, the goodly fellowship of the Prophets, the noble army of Martyrs, and the vast majority of the Fathers would all have a green, or even yellow, meatball if they were on here. I believe that Father H is holding back. This is not even his best attempt (no, Father, I am not going to butt out). So, contrary to your supposition, and some of the moderators on this forum, an ad hominem remark certainly would be the Christian thing to do when confronted with your unholy and Godless comments. Maybe even Saintly. And before you dismiss someone’s debating ability, learn how to do it yourself. Like most modern liberals, you are not very good at it.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

What if there is a mitigating circumstance for the murder for hire? Why should an assassin with a heart of gold like Leon in The Professional suffer the same fate as someone who pays someone to gruesomely murder a baby?

After all, there are some people that just need killing (or so I heard down South).

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

The reality is abortion is murder. Murder is a sin. When you accept this fact, then perhaps we can discuss ways to convince the heretics and heathens of their evil deeds. Not before.

As long as you continue to act like a judgmental boor then you will be dismissed out of hand by most people and abortions will continue apace.

Good work...

I am truly astonished at your dedicated persistence to utterly avoid every rational point about the real topic being discussed and continue to fester over your lack of a point. Amazing...and very, very sad.

The reality is abortion is murder. Murder is a sin. When you accept this fact, then perhaps we can discuss ways to convince the heretics and heathens of their evil deeds. Not before.

As long as you continue to act like a judgmental boor then you will be dismissed out of hand by most people and abortions will continue apace.

Good work...

I am truly astonished at your dedicated persistence to utterly avoid every rational point about the real topic being discussed and continue to fester over your lack of a point. Amazing...and very, very sad.

List ?

Oh right... no specifics, just hot air

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

It's cute when open advocates of genocide get all pious and righteous about abortion.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cryIs to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Come now, just because we are opposed to your political voting bloc on religious grounds (on a religious forum) doesn't make us judgmental or boorish.

Quite frankly, if you wanna go by the definition of boor - continually arguing against an accepted religious position on a religious forum regarding a religious topic from a political point of view after one of the representatives of said forum reiterated that this is a religious topic - is pretty rude or insensitive.

And I am pretty sure that you could find plenty of pictures of guys with halos that would have had no problem meting out justice toward someone who murdered an infant. It's not like anyone here is suggesting that all Women as a gender/sex should be punnished, only those that commit the crime, along with the men who help them along.

Seriously Marc, at this point you are the dead horse and you are being beaten. You cannot even argue your position without leaving the scope of the debate entirely, or exaggerating to the point of nonsense. If I wasn't such a stubborn ******* I'd probably not consider it worth my time or effort to argue with you about this. Thank God my time is pretty much worthless.

And Iconodule, it would be cute, and I mean cuter than this picture:

if you could actually make a point instead of just dropping in for some snarky ad hominem Parthian shot.

I must of miss understood the part about not judging others and to look to your own sins

But recognizing one's sin is the first step to repentance. Some of us just have not reached passed that step yet. Unfortunately, some have not reached the first step yet either. There is a big difference between saying "I realize that abortion (or genocide, or masturbation, or bestiality, or whatever) is a sin, and an offense to God. However, I don't think that pointing your finger in someone's face and saying "your sinning" is the most effective argument to use on an unbeliever," and saying "abortion (or genocide, or masturbation . . .) is not a sin as long as you don't believe that it is a sin." I think that some of us, and me particularly, believe that you are trying to advocate the latter. If you are actually trying to advocate the former, then I can respect your opinion, and possibly even agree with you to an extent. However, I cannot accept the latter view and still consider myself a Christian, much less Orthodox. There are things that I do that I know to be sin. There are beliefs that I hold that I know to be sin. That is why I bother going to Church and take time to read religious writings, so that perhaps I can learn to overcome these things instead of soothing my conscience by saying they are not sins.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I was speaking with a fellow yesterday who told me he had a child aborted behind his back and he was never able to forgive her. It destroyed their relationship. She knew he wanted the child and she killed it anyway.

Sounds like this is their own Private Business that you shouldn't meddle in or repeat in public.

It's cute when open advocates of genocide get all pious and righteous about abortion.

O get real. It is not cute, it is godly. Don't you read the Old Testament? Abortion = Bad. Genocide against Canaan = Good. Not doing a thorough genocide against Canaan = Bad. Is it any wonder that people get confused?

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

I was speaking with a fellow yesterday who told me he had a child aborted behind his back and he was never able to forgive her. It destroyed their relationship. She knew he wanted the child and she killed it anyway.

Sounds like this is their own Private Business that you shouldn't meddle in or repeat in public.

It's probably a relaxed Germanic capitalization standard. If I understand correctly, the Krauts capitalize anything that is a Noun. Ex. - The Dog walked over to the Doghouse, and urinated upon the Grass that was next to the Doghouse. Der Hund ging auf der Hundehütte, und urinierte auf das Gras, das neben der Hundehütte war.

(FWIW, that is Google translate b/c I suck auf Deutsch. I changed all the Dogs and Doghouses and Grass to lower case before pasting it and it came up as Capitals. Oh, and I think the "das neben..." should be either "dass neben" or "daß neben"...I think. Like I said, I suck at Germaning...)

So perhaps he capitalizes Nouns, but is not very rigid on which ones he does so?

Or possibly it's just a means of emphasizing rather than using italics or bold. If so, props to him for not using ALL CAPS, BECAUSE IT IS SILLY TO DO SO.

So yes, J. Michael, vamrat, Father Hill, I am assuming you would stop possibly short of killing another to stop a murder.

Big leap.

Sorry if I assumed you would go so far.

Perhaps you should just stop making assumptions about us altogether.

That is impossible:

You know what I mean. And.........impossible or not, why not give it the old college try, eh? Or at least tone them down.

I've put Gadamer's book on my wish list--thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, not only is that list now very long, in addition there are all the books piled up around the house waiting to be read that have more priority at the moment. I also have a sneaky suspicion that a) Gadamer is over my head, and b) even if he wrote it (whatever the "it" of it is ) does not necessarily make it true. So, while you say it's impossible not to make assumptions and reference Gadamer, that also does not make it true that it is impossible not to make assumptions--at least of the kind we're referring to in this thread. But, I'm not smart enough or educated enough to really know that--maybe one day .

is true about Gadamer's book, plus the fact of it being over 600 pages long, I'm going to go out on a fairly large, strong and thick limb, and assume, with pretty good reason, that it is waaayyyy over my head. It has now been bumped to the bottom of my wish list. Sorry. But not very.

That jpeg going to be my new stock response.

Yeah, really you can get 93% of the import of the work probably from reading the wiki about it.

You already understand it anyhow. There is nothing you can name that you don't understand, but there is a lot you can't name that you do. Or so Gadamer would tell you.

On the review, really it would nice to have a few dozen pages of Being and Time before Truth and Method, since really it is Gadamer taking a smattering of Heidegger and running wild with the implications.

Sure its great to have the Critique of Judgement under your belt as any university grad ought, and you are RC, so Augustine and Aquinas are second nature to you.

No problem right?

Really, like most "important" books, people like to make a bigger deal about how difficult they are. If some white poorly educated piece of trash can read this stuff make a little sense out of it, anyone can.

Seriously, I can see why folks have trouble with the Critiques and Hegel, but I've rarely come across any other reading that is so daunting that is should deter anyone with reading level which does not make one functionally illiterate in your typical American high school.

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Stop crying. God hates sissy-like behavior. Yes, you are being judged. You are being judged with righteous judgment.

"Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?" (Psalm 58.1).

You are silent to judge the evildoers but loud to judge those who judge rightly, to your own perdition.

"You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor." (Lev. 19.15)

While we must aid the needy, we cannot judge unrightously favoring them when they sin, for we are doing them no favor.

"Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison." (Luke 12.56-58)

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31.9). Here we are taught to judge righteously against those who are doing no sin among the poor and need and are being oppressed by those who are sinning against them in a greedy manner.

This means that we must help the needy but uphold the Lord's standards.

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Stop crying. God hates sissy-like behavior. Yes, you are being judged. You are being judged with righteous judgment.

"Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?" (Psalm 58.1).

You are silent to judge the evildoers but loud to judge those who judge rightly, to your own perdition.

"You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor." (Lev. 19.15)

While we must aid the needy, we cannot judge unrightously favoring them when they sin, for we are doing them no favor.

"Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison." (Luke 12.56-58)

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31.9). Here we are taught to judge righteously against those who are doing no sin among the poor and need and are being oppressed by those who are sinning against them in a greedy manner.

This means that we must help the needy but uphold the Lord's standards.

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Amen Father! Now sit back and await the onslaught of unrighteous and hypocritical judgment that will be heaped upon you for daring to speak such truth.

Selam

Logged

"There are two great tragedies: one is to live a life ruled by the passions, and the other is to live a passionless life."Selam, +GMK+

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Amen. I has always frustrated me that it seems that the only moral command that Liberals will quote is "you should not judge", and then they even screw that one up. We judge every day, and we have to. We judge based on words, actions, history and other such variables. Those that do not judge anything end up at the bottom of the food chain and very quickly become extinct. What we can never judge, however, is a person's soul. It is not unlawful for me to tell you that you are committing a sin by a certain action. However, I cannot tell you that you are going to Hell for it. That is only God's to decide.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Amen. I has always frustrated me that it seems that the only moral command that Liberals will quote is "you should not judge", and then they even screw that one up. We judge every day, and we have to. We judge based on words, actions, history and other such variables. Those that do not judge anything end up at the bottom of the food chain and very quickly become extinct. What we can never judge, however, is a person's soul. It is not unlawful for me to tell you that you are committing a sin by a certain action. However, I cannot tell you that you are going to Hell for it. That is only God's to decide.

Er I don't think appealing to Darwinism helps your case if you are arguing as a Christian. We don't base our morality on how it helps us in the survival of the fittest. If we did, we would favor abortion for those who are a burden on society, like the poor.

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Stop crying. God hates sissy-like behavior. Yes, you are being judged. You are being judged with righteous judgment.

"Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?" (Psalm 58.1).

You are silent to judge the evildoers but loud to judge those who judge rightly, to your own perdition.

"You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor." (Lev. 19.15)

While we must aid the needy, we cannot judge unrightously favoring them when they sin, for we are doing them no favor.

"Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison." (Luke 12.56-58)

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31.9). Here we are taught to judge righteously against those who are doing no sin among the poor and need and are being oppressed by those who are sinning against them in a greedy manner.

This means that we must help the needy but uphold the Lord's standards.

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Who are you again?

If you are going to impose religious formulations on civil society you better have a large consensus behind it. I think by being obnoxious you may damage building that consensus.

It is perfectly reasonable for an ordinarily prudent person to disagree with you. It is perfectly reasonable not to beleive a zygote is a "Child".

In fact a sane, rationale, good person by any measure, can look at a zygote and not beleive it is a fully formed person with a "soul"

So when you insist on calling people "Murderers" they tune you out.. Therefore, if you really want to reduce abortions you should do those things that may actually do that and avoid doing things that drive people away from considering your idea's.

ZYGOTE

CHILD

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Amen. I has always frustrated me that it seems that the only moral command that Liberals will quote is "you should not judge", and then they even screw that one up. We judge every day, and we have to. We judge based on words, actions, history and other such variables. Those that do not judge anything end up at the bottom of the food chain and very quickly become extinct. What we can never judge, however, is a person's soul. It is not unlawful for me to tell you that you are committing a sin by a certain action. However, I cannot tell you that you are going to Hell for it. That is only God's to decide.

Not unlawful, just counterproductive and not really necessary. IMHO

Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Amen. I has always frustrated me that it seems that the only moral command that Liberals will quote is "you should not judge", and then they even screw that one up. We judge every day, and we have to. We judge based on words, actions, history and other such variables. Those that do not judge anything end up at the bottom of the food chain and very quickly become extinct. What we can never judge, however, is a person's soul. It is not unlawful for me to tell you that you are committing a sin by a certain action. However, I cannot tell you that you are going to Hell for it. That is only God's to decide.

Er I don't think appealing to Darwinism helps your case if you are arguing as a Christian. We don't base our morality on how it helps us in the survival of the fittest. If we did, we would favor abortion for those who are a burden on society, like the poor.

Do you understand social Darwinism? I cannot appeal to the other since I do not accept it. I am mearly stating that if you trust everybody, you will eventually be used by everybody until there is nothing left to use, provided that you are just not flat out killed.

Logged

I would be happy to agree with you, but then both of us would be wrong.

Yes, calling a sin a sin is good. Especially if it causes them to persecute you for righteousness sake. If evil men dismiss your arguments it shall be their loss. Who listened to the prophets? John the Baptist lost his head for speaking out about a sin. Christ was nailed to the Cross for pointing out sin and hypocrisy. Preaching the word of God caused the synagogue to dismiss Stephan's arguments and they dismissed them with rocks. But he became the first martyr, so their loss, yo! But every once in a while someone hears you out and has a change of heart. The Prophet Nathan pointed out King David's sin...that sort of thing usually brings extreme flak... but he brought the King to repentance.

So yeah, Kerdy, JMichael, and Punch are in good company I would say.

Where would you rather stand? With the Herod the Baby-Killer or with unpopular guys like Christ, the Forerunner, the Martyrs, and the Prophets?

Okay then..Boorish judgmentalism and not too veiled threats of violence against Women is Christian.. Who would have guessed ?

Stop crying. God hates sissy-like behavior. Yes, you are being judged. You are being judged with righteous judgment.

"Do you indeed speak righteousness, you silent ones? Do you judge uprightly, you sons of men?" (Psalm 58.1).

You are silent to judge the evildoers but loud to judge those who judge rightly, to your own perdition.

"You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. In righteousness you shall judge your neighbor." (Lev. 19.15)

While we must aid the needy, we cannot judge unrightously favoring them when they sin, for we are doing them no favor.

"Hypocrites! You can discern the face of the sky and of the earth, but how is it you do not discern this time? Yes, and why, even of yourselves, do you not judge what is right? When you go with your adversary to the magistrate, make every effort along the way to settle with him, lest he drag you to the judge, the judge deliver you to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison." (Luke 12.56-58)

"Open your mouth, judge righteously, And plead the cause of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31.9). Here we are taught to judge righteously against those who are doing no sin among the poor and need and are being oppressed by those who are sinning against them in a greedy manner.

This means that we must help the needy but uphold the Lord's standards.

And know certainly that I, and several others on here, will obey the Lord's command to judge rightly:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." (John 7.24)

It is a commandment, and I, for one, will follow it.

Who are you again?

If you are going to impose religious formulations on civil society you better have a large consensus behind it. I think by being obnoxious you may damage building that consensus.

It is perfectly reasonable for an ordinarily prudent person to disagree with you. It is perfectly reasonable not to beleive a zygote is a "Child".

In fact a sane, rationale, good person by any measure, can look at a zygote and not beleive it is a fully formed person with a "soul"

So when you insist on calling people "Murderers" they tune you out.. Therefore, if you really want to reduce abortions you should do those things that may actually do that and avoid doing things that drive people away from considering your idea's.

ZYGOTE

CHILD

I'm not really sure why I'm even bothering any more with you (I know, I know...you'd be overjoyed if I didn't ). Guess I'm living up to my claim to being a little crazy. Maybe even more than just a little . Maybe I care too much, if that's possible. Oh well...

I think he (Father H) is a duly ordained priest of the Church you claim membership of. For some strange reason I'm thinking that should matter to you.

No...a zygote is not a fully developed child. A child is not a fully developed teenager. A teenager is not a fully developed adult. But they are all the same human being. You'd have to be an idiot to deny that.

Maybe you should review this:

Quote

The human embryo is the same individual as the human organism at subsequent stages of development. The evidence for this is the genetic and epigenetic composition of this being—that is, the embryo's molecular composition is such that he or she has the internal resources to develop actively himself or herself to the next mature stage—and the typical embryo's regular, predictable and observable behaviour—that is, the embryo's actual progression through an internally coordinated and complex sequence of development to his or her mature stage.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." The "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Univ. of Descarte, Paris

Did you know that just because something is "perfectly reasonable" that doesn't make it perfectly right, or even close to right? Satan and his minions have a reputation for being "perfectly reasonable" and prudent and rational and sane when it suits them.

Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire. May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian